Are there any churches that reject Biblical inerrancy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jinc1019
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pablope said:
Hmm…so how does God convey His infallibility and infallible truth to the world?
Click to expand...
He has communicated it to us through his prophets and apostles. It is enough that he is infallible. As the receivers of his revelation it does not require us to be infallible. He has given us the capacity to receive and understand it. He gives us the faith to believe it.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
I am not infallibly certain of anything. I will gladly allow God to be the only Being who is infallible. Inerrancy is a different matter, however.
Click to expand...
Scripture is* inerrant.*

The inspired writers of Scripture were infallible.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
He has communicated it to us through his prophets and apostles. It is enough that he is infallible. As the receivers of his revelation it does not require us to be infallible. He has given us the capacity to receive and understand it. He gives us the faith to believe it.
Click to expand...
They how come there are so many thousand different understandings within protestantism? Who is right and who is wrong?

How does God communicate this infallibly today? Has it stopped or continues? How do one apply it to the times of today?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Yes yes…we’ve heardcthis umpteen times. You have at least 3 (and more) church bodies that claim sacred apostolic tradition and dont agree on crucial matters.
Click to expand...
If you could proffer what these differences are on these “crucial” matters.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
He has communicated it to us through his prophets and apostles. It is enough that he is infallible. As the receivers of his revelation it does not require us to be infallible. He has given us the capacity to receive and understand it. He gives us the faith to believe it.
Click to expand...
Until a particular church member of “Corner Church A” decides that what her (fallible) pastor has “received” and proclaimed is contrary to Scripture…then this church member will church shop and join “Corner Church B”.

Here she will worship until her (fallible) pastor “receives” and proclaims something she feels is contrary to Scripture…then this church member will church shop again…

ad infinitum…:eek:
 
pablope said:
They how come there are so many thousand different understandings within protestantism? Who is right and who is wrong?

How does God communicate this infallibly today? Has it stopped or continues? How do one apply it to the times of today?
Click to expand...
🍿
 
PRmerger said:
Those are excellent examples. Plus transubstantiation.

The EO believe and proclaim all of these, in essentially the same manner as the CC does.
Click to expand...
Yes, which is why the OCA makes this statement about the similarity to Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy: “The Protestant churches, as you know, came out of the Roman Church when this body was already separated from the Eastern Orthodox Church. Thus, as one Russian theologian put it in the last century, it is probably true to say that the Roman and Reformed Protestant churches are much closer to each other—historically, spiritually, theologically, culturally, psychologically—than the Orthodox Church is to either.”
 
PRmerger said:
Please offer some citations of this Coptic view on the nature of Christ. Thanks.
Click to expand...
“As a result of the unity of both natures-the Divine and the human-inside the
Virgin’s womb, one nature was formed out of both: “The One Nature of God the
Incarnate Logos” as St. Cyril called it.” Pope Shenouda, “The Nature of Christ.”

Do you accept this, PR? Or do you hold to the Chalcedonian Creed?
 
Arizona_Samson said:
Their writings were infallible, they were not. As clearly proven in Paul’s admonishment of Peter.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s nothing more and nothing less than what the CC proclaims about our Magisterium. Her teachings are infallible. They are not.

That is, the infallibility is a function of the office, not the man.

Do you have any objection to this?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
“As a result of the unity of both natures-the Divine and the human-inside the
Virgin’s womb, one nature was formed out of both: “The One Nature of God the
Incarnate Logos” as St. Cyril called it.” Pope Shenouda, “The Nature of Christ.”

Do you accept this, PR? Or do you hold to the Chalcedonian Creed?
Click to expand...
Please cite your source. Thanks.
 
pablope said:
From St. Ireneus…But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition…

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about
Click to expand...
Pablope, you left out those sayings from Irenaeus where he defines what the content of that tradition is. Of course, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you do know that those sections that you’re quoting do contain his definition of apostolic tradition is, yes?

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

Which he follows with…

“To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendor, shall come in glory, the Savior of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.” (3:4:2)

Now, where is that tradition any different than what is recorded for us in sacred Scripture?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Pablope, you left out those sayings from Irenaeus where he defines what the content of that tradition is. Of course, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you do know that those sections that you’re quoting do contain his definition of apostolic tradition is, yes?
“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top